Dear all,

Almost at the end of this first week of exchange, I am sending a document which I believe can contribute to complete the analysis of networks and their main characteristics, excerpted from a material elaborated by a uruguayan colleague, Cecilia Zaffaroni.

To wrap up the week, we shall be sending another message with a reflection that summarizes what has been exchanged up to now and through this first synthesis we will be able to continue, next week, with the seminar, according to the programme.

We invite you to send your own synthesis, pending questions and reflections.

Have a nice weekend.

Cecilia Fernández

**************************************

NETWORKS : Context and Characterization.

by Cecilia Zaffaroni

The organization of human activities in networks is rather recent, coinciding with the second half of the XX century.
This kind of organization is a response to the erosion of the bureaucratic organization that characterizes the century: centralist connotation and social control.
These original conditions of the bureaucratic organizations start to modify and transform themselves.

The world conceived as “global village” makes national, regional and international cooperation necessary. Networks constitute a way in which the intensification of interrelations is expressed.

Networks are structured as organizations that break off with hierarchies and where horizontal relationships are fostered. Networks’ activities and existence depend on the initiative of each of their parts or nodules, and not on a central and single instance. The interconnections and relations of dependency get increasingly closer and multiply.

Changes are producing an expansion of diversity. Certain situations that are  taking place escape the normal standards, with the emergence of scenarios about which no standard hypothesis can be elaborated in terms of projections for the future. The changes are marked by a blooming complexity, never known before. In turn, complexity determines high levels of uncertainties. Within this context, the predictability levels have been reduced to the minimum.

Characteristics of Non- Governmental Organizations Networks:

·Flexibility and adaptability to the changing situations of the communicational, social, economic or political context

·Formality  the NGOs emerge as marginal organizations to carry out, basically, those development-related activities; they seem to have the characteristics of the kind of organization required by the current changing society, given the nature and vertiginous pace of the “global change”.

·Tendency to become institutionalized and present themselves as valid and universal models of organization. This model of organization is being conceptually incorporated to the formal and even State spheres, as a more general perspective. There is a tendency on the part of those States that are best organized in the world to replace gradually the whole system of vertical pyramids and hierarchies, with a network system. The defy the assumption that bureaucracy and hierarchy constitute the only way of organization for large number of people.

·They are considered the most adequate large-scale organization way, as it allows the combination of different levels: territoriality (national, regional, international); thematic; influence; power, etc. They imply broadening the physical, social and subjective limits of knowledge production. A network does not work in an self-referent way; it is not endogenous, it is not autarchic, it goes outside for the constant search of interactions and exchanges, through which networks are produced and reproduced, growing qualitatively, always opening the horizons.

·They stand out on account of their flexibility, horizontality and systemic character; in order to grow and develop, each part requires from the other part creativity and polyvalence, both from the organizations and the individuals that are part of the network.

·They also give shape to an interactive dimension through the analysis of their experiences, which is necessarily collaborative and where ideas are developed and knowledge is broadened.

·“Social construction of knowledge…
This meaning of knowledge is the one tensioning the networks’ work towards their becoming more productive, more rationally planned and tested through its results.

Different types of knowledge is produced:

-       knowledge for action
-       knowledge for public awareness
-       knowledge for policy-making
-       knowledge for the articulation of actors
-       knowledge for training programmes
-       knowledge for thematic theorization
-       knowledge for the orientation of international cooperation policies

·Consensus: the need to reach a consensus with others so as to make agreements, “breaking frontiers”




Dear all,

Before starting with what is planned according to the programme of the second week, we have decided to include other contributions and comments which we received during the weekend.

In the first place, we would like to share Sofia's reflection which reviews the inputs of the week and provokes us with the idea of a democratic radicalization process in networks.

Tomorrow, we promise to go deep into the programme: "Brainstorming: how do we want ICAE to be in 2009?".

Thanks for your interest and keep up the exchange.

Cecilia Fernández

***********************************

Inputs by Sofia Valdivielso

The contributions made by Action Aid, Social Watch and Civicus provide us with important materials for the reflection we have embarked upon.

We have concrete descriptions of how networks organize and articulate among each other. What they all have in common is that they do this around a concrete theme (poverty, education, gender, etc.), that brings together not only the actions to implement but also the organizations and persons that are willing to commit themselves in the defense and promotion of each of the topics that contribute to their identity.

Each of these organizations is also a social role-player that talks and acts with this identity. What Social Watch, Action Aid , Civicus, Green Peace, ICAE, REPEM or any other network say and do is more important than what one of their members say, even if that person is the general director or the president of the organization. Each organization has its own discourse and works towards achieving the objectives that define it. In my opinion, it is the action and the impact it has, socially and at the media level, what is of value, independently of who is in charge or who implements it.

When Amnesty International or Social Watch makes a denunciation, they do it as social role-players. This denunciation has a social impact and forces governments to explain the situation and also to act on what has been reported. It is the organization who has credibility, it is the organization talking independently of the person who in a particular situation might have been the one presenting the denunciation. But we retain the name of the organization, not of the person.

When organizations were local and local-focused, personalities were important because individuals were the ones who had social credibility. Currently, with the change of scale, with the upsurge of global organizations, the organization is the one that becomes the social actor and its legitimacy will depend on its own history. When there is an ecological attack, Green Peace will respond, if there are human rights violations, Amnesty International will talk, when what is at stake is to ensure the right to education for adults it will be ICAE the one talking, presenting reports and offering alternatives to improve the situation.

The discourse and the action undertaken by this social role-player is what counts. The debate around the representativity of its members is of less importance. There are organizations, with high representativity, that defend values which I do not agree with. Is this representativity what gives them legitimacy? I do not think so because we have historical experiences that show the limits of this approach (let’s not forget that fascism’s arrival to power took place democratically).

To lead a global network is a difficult and arduous task. It requires complex capacities that must be learned and for that one must be willing to dedicate a lot of time and efforts. It is very important that the network structures itself around discourse, new values and new strategies. The people who lead are temporary and change constantly. What remains is the organization and I think that we should make efforts so that it remains and it grows as a social role-player able to attract other social role-players, whether they are individual or collective ones. Networks should not be representative in the old hierarchical style because they do not represent organizations, they are not corporate networks. Social networks connect organizations and also individuals who are not part of any organization. Their purpose is to be efficient and able to generate consciousness and change. They should also facilitate the emergence of what Wilber has called “collective individual” or Edgar Morin “multiple unity”. ICAE is one and at the same time is multiple. The people who belong to ICAE will identify with its discourse, its ideas and values. They will work so that the right to education for all becomes a reality in each corner of the world. To ensure that this happens, it is necessary to have a minimum structure that will rely on people able to implement it.

Before networks we had associations that came together in federations and these ones in turn formed federations of federations. To be able to get to the broader structure one had to be a member of a local association, then of a federation and then be named member of the federation of federations. Those of us who have participated in these structures know that the fact that some people became members of federations did not necessarily mean that they represented the grass-roots, because as soon as they made it to that position they forgot where they were coming from. The process was formally a democratic one, but it was just formally so. Thousands of pages have been written about the limits of this representativity. In my opinion, we must start writing about direct participation, as a way to radicalize democracy. This democratic radicalization requires individuals who represent themselves and connect with other individuals with whom they share world views. They all form a flexible and changing network.


Hi again,

We would like to thank you and share with you the interesting inputs of Salma from Tanzania that makes us think out of the box, take into account diversity in our composition and in our agendas, and provides new questions on the implications that the present global context where we act and live has for organized civil societly

The Assembly will undoubtedly be a privileged space to reflect on and plan our present and future.

Thanks to all of you

Cecilia Fernandez

*********************************
Inputs by Salma Maoulidi

Greetings,
I share below my thoughts on the conversations being exchanged thus far mainly on networks and structure...
Salma, Tanzania

The contributions thus far attest to the evolutionary (as well as revolutionary) understanding and practice of networks. Why we came to be and why we organize the way we do is very much informed by our histories. Also what we take on reflects the context in which we seek to intervene whether directly or indirectly. Surely, with reflective practice we have learned many lessons, and in some cases have reviewed our work, in the hope that we are more efficient and effective. But does this suffice? I think the challenge for networks as well as other forms of organizing is to how to rejuvenate one’s purpose? The issue is not just that we are engaged in a noble cause but that what we do remains and is relevant. Also that our practice remains at the cutting edge- is grounded enough to give us legitimacy, innovative enough to make us efficient, is inclusive enough to help us make the links we need with other disciplines and sectors… Definitely, past networks have been more concerned with the question of structure and authority and less so with the content informing the network. Thus national and transnational advocacy undertaken by networks has been limited from the failure to agree on modalities for collective advocacy and action and not the substance of the issue at hand. Only recently have we began thinking out of the box in how we can organize and surely more needs to be done on this front. It must not be enough to describe what we want but actually act it out to give others confidence that we are not just about grandiose ideas and intellectual gobbledygook, the rest of the population (including key constituents) struggle to comprehend… The diversity that exists in our composition as well as in our agendas, ideally should be a source of strength not of paralysis! What we have failed to do this to make it work for us is to appreciate the breadth of this diversity and include it in our repertoire of networking, learning and activism and not just end with explaining it or advocating for it. Inviting members to see how they can further the aims and concern of the network is one aspect of taking into account how other can become involved but we also must not overlook what is already being done by network members to further our agenda. We can garnish this in present terms without seeking to replicate efforts which I think is what is keeping less resourced network from taking on what appears as new agendas.
Certainly the political landscape influence network operations- as well as its nature, the political climate referring both to the internal politicking as well as the overall political situation in a country or in countries the network operate. Of course with the war on terror we see the effect of global geo-politics on our ability to work as civil society entities; our right to associate; the issue(s) we can work on; the amount of resources available to us; the levels of tolerance (and suspicion) influencing relationships and the list can go on. Few of us have however taken stock of what all this means to us and our future- will it require that we act and organize differently? That we relate differently? That we see and analyze differently?
On sustainability and building on what has thus far been achieved I think the challenge lays in the fact that there are now many factors influencing not only our work but also what is happening in our back yards as well as in the world, things that demand us to react and respond in ways that we don’t always have control or direct management of process; nor are we ever certain to return where we left off but find ourselves often thrust in new agendas. I think this is where our challenge lies. How can we retain and achieve coherence in a fast moving and mutating context? Identifying strategic areas of focus is one consideration but alone is not sufficient to achieve the results we want.

Equally, important to consider is balancing the needs and interest of the larger network with that of individual members. The concern should not just be which issues they take up and how many are on board. Rather, I think the challenge is how far individual members self-actualize by being members of the network.

 

Dear all,

We would like to thank you for the time you have taken  to write your reflections. Evidently, many colleague activists were able to do so thanks to the weekend. We will have to take this into account for next virtual exchanges.

Imelda Arana from Colombia, is giving her point of view based on her experience at REPEM (ICAE regional member) in feminist and women's movements, and she mentions the challenge posed by the search of "effective leadership, decision-making mechanisms that combine local autonomy with global responsibility, and structures that promote grass-roots initiatives" , among others.

We will go on sharing experiences.

Cecilia Fernandez

***********************

Inputs by Imelda Arana

I thank Celita and all the others involved in calling this seminar for the initiative of having a significantly long preparatory process towards the next ICAE general assembly. I would like to make some comments on the interesting key papers presented.

I want to highlight, first of all, the call made by Paul Belanger to make ICAE´s action more efficient, with more dynamism in its organization as a network of networks and looking for a renewal in the practice of citizenship; that means to look for more creativity and new initiatives in the design and promotion of new public policies that can contribute to overcome social injustices. This provides a medium and long term view for the future of ICAE. Within this approach, related to a more dynamic operation of the organization as a network and a network of networks, the contributions from Laura and Jeanine are crucial.

As a member of REPEM in Latin America, with a sustained history of struggle for women's education and empowerment (political, economic and cultural), rich in organizational and implementation initiatives but also in uncertainties with respect to the efficiency of its action in the immediate future, I think that this seminar gives us the opportunity to continue and deepen the dialogue initiated in 2000 within our network, in preparation for the General Assemblies of Lima (2000) and Porto Alegre (2004) in relation to the topic of the first session of this seminar.

It is from this background that I believe that several contributions have been very useful, among them:

1. The reference made to the complexity of the current organizational behavior of social groups, at the local, regional, national and global levels, not just in their individual actions but, mainly, in the interconnection and interrelation towards increasingly broader common goals.  One could talk, after the evidences mentioned and the articulations built in events such as the World Social Forums, of planetary struggles with macro and micro manifestations; that is to say that the complexity refers equally to quantity as to the quality of the mobilizations with collective aims.

From this point of view, only the logic of networks and nodes can mobilize the flow of information, energy and knowledge required to obtain significant results in terms of political impact and influence. For that purpose, certain characteristics of networks are favorable, such as informality in the relations and horizontality in the flow of information as well as in the decision-making; this relates to what Ana Laura refers to as proximity citing Lomnitz.

2. The need to connect the observation of organizational practices with explanations from the contemporary social sciences, which provide clarity over human expressions that deviate from the norm, set by formal, traditional and traditionalist science. Within this framework the inclusion of social networks as a category of analysis of new relations, calls us to look with more detail at the evolution of spontaneous forms of organization and mobilization. In the case of REPEM and the feminists' and women's movements we need to be more careful when evaluating the unevenness, the waves, the depressions and in general the ups and downs of the struggles and mobilizations. It is a task of the women's networks to allocate resources to the systematization of the organizational and lobbying experiences.

3. Ana Laura also talks about the possibilities offered by the information and communication technologies, whose logic has reached social organizations. The impact that this phenomenon can have in the social sphere is ambivalent. From the point of view of the digital logic, the network circuit mobilizes currents that in the broad spectrum of today's society can promote the expansion to a great scale, and this in the life of social organizations offers interesting perspectives.

From the point of view of social reality, social organizations are acting trying to get the best out of the technologies but at the same time to protect themselves from the negative effects on the working life of big sectors of the population who have been displaced by the indiscriminate introduction of these technologies. In the case of women's organizations, something similar could have a very high cost. Women in financial and trade networks play a central role in the maintenance and functioning of such networks but not in the expansion and innovation, that is to say, in relation to the generation of new supporting knowledge. On the other hand, poverty is leaving women without access to possible advantages.

4. It is not possible to study the advantages of organizational experiences in networks without recognizing the contribution from feminism. The feminist movement, at least in Latin America, was one of the first, if not the first one, to establish this organizational model. The reference to closed networks with a prevalence of strong bonds made by Ana Laura citing Granovetter, could perfectly be a reference to the network style developed by women.

Finally, I mention Jeanine who has worked with REPEM in its study of social networks, she has told us that social phenomena, even if they are local, are always linked to global phenomena, and from that point of view the international networks and organizations from civil society are among the most important phenomena of our time, they are part of a process of construction of a global society and carry within a new "social technology". Their search for agreements to understand reality and act upon it is what needs to be highlighted from these new world role-players.

For ICAE and REPEM, who operate in a global context as networks, this is a recognition of their contribution. But it is also a challenge. That's why some of the questions that arise from this process must be looked at carefully in search of: more effective leadership, decision-making mechanisms that combine local autonomy with global responsibility, structures that promote grass-roots initiatives. In this way the operational capacity and the systems to manage trustable resources become strengthened. These could be topics for the next sessions of the seminary.

Imelda Arana Saenz


Dear all,

In order to close the first week of this virtual seminar, preparatory to ICAE World Assembly, Jeanine Anderson, elaborated a closing paper which helps and makes us think, in depth, about some of the complexities that networks face, such as "the need to develop systems for regular opinion",  building of alliances and the necessary network identity continuity.

We are sure that several ideas will come up from the brainstorming that we are now opening.

We make our way walking !

Cecilia Fernandez


Paper by Jeanine Anderson

This week’s exchange has been rich in ideas, experiences, suggestions, and perspectives.  Many different histories of international networks came forward, together with many different ways of functioning in things that call themselves “international networks.”  The was also a clear sense of excitement, of being involved in something new that has no known outcome.  Truly, we do not know yet whether the peoples of the world will be able to organize themselves in ways that put limits on the powers of the great transnational institutions.  Maybe this is a last chance to try to control events.

I take away several impressions from the week’s conversation that relate directly to ICAE and its internal process.  One has to do with conflict.  Networks make it very easy for persons and groups who disagree with some decision or action simply to drop out.  They always have the option of simply ceasing to communicate.  They are not asked to explain their discontent and probably do not feel motivated to do so.  They just go quiet, for a while or permanently.  Worse yet, some individuals and organizations that could be attracted to a network never get involved because they have some points of disagreement (or doubt and confusion) that have no way of being resolved.

This might suggest that networks need to develop systems for regular opinion polls or quick consultations that could check the state of mind and sentiment of a broad swath of members, adherents and sympathizers.  It will be a serious problem for ICAE if the people who least participate in the process leading up to the world assembly turn out to be those who disagree with the direction that process ends up taking.  Other than polls and votes, there might be more indirect ways of bringing contrary currents of opinion out into the open.  Many of the “pro” and “con” positions that people take must spring from the kind of work they are involved in, from particular kinds of institutional bases.  There might be ways of drawing out, for example, people working in the grassroots and people working at high levels of lobbying and policy formulation. 

The truly unfortunate possibility is that one group or another, one segment of opinion or another, could simply give up on the idea of cooperating in a shared project.  And because a network typically doesn’t have such things as mechanisms for channeling protests, letters of resignation with stated cause, and similar formalities of structured institutions, it might never become aware that it had lost the loyalty and participation of a whole category of members.

A second reflection on the week takes me back to the issue of who networks engage with: their partners and allies, but also their opponents and the objects of their strategies and campaigns.  I’m convinced that education is a very particular field of action, unlike any other.  Everything is urgent and therefore nothing is urgent, for all those involved.  This makes it extremely difficult for ICAE to develop priorities.  ICAE’s priorities would somehow have to respond to the priorities of its allies, strategic objectives and opposition.  But with these so vague and diffuse, they hardly offer any guidance.  Under these circumstances, would it make sense for ICAE to devote a large amount of resources to efforts at agenda-setting?  If ICAE came forward with a very clear and explicit set of priorities, announced very loudly, would the other actors around it feel provoked to take positions in an equally clear and explicit way? 

Finally, I wonder what the importance is, in a network, of having a “network memory” analogous to the “institutional memories” of structured organizations.  The history of ICAE is important to its local members; that is to say, the local histories of ICAE in the various versions that have played out in different regions and different member organizations.  The “network memory” should help a network to maintain its identity through thick and thin, and it should also set limits on the variation that might otherwise occur around program, agenda, policies, public image, and even internal structure.  In organizations it is understood that the “institutional memory” is not written in books or kept in files, but rather it is deposited in the elders of the tribe.  Could there be an analogy here?

So . . the conversation continues, and best wishes to all.